Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[nightwyrm]

That's why we play with the 1 is an auto fail rule.

But that's saying there's always a minimum 5% chance of failure at doing anything. That's a ridiculously high rate of failure for someone who's supposed to have devoted his life to improving that skill and that's what that someone did, spending so much resource on his skill that rolling a 1 is still going to pass the DC.

Even for difficult, complicated tasks, 5% failure rate is unacceptably high. I'm sure you'd agree that piloting and landing a commercial jet is a difficult task, but we don't have 5% of planes crashing everyday.

Actually I'm describing reasons why someone may fail at something they are normally good at.

But those cases are usually so uncommon that it's less than 5%. The d20 simply isn't granular enough to cover those rare cases of failure.

 

[wedgeski]

That's why we play with the 1 is an auto fail rule.

Then it's not surprising you advocate the removal of Take 10, because it invalidates your house rule. It would've been useful for you to mention that in your OP.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

But that's saying there's always a minimum 5% chance of failure at doing anything. That's a ridiculously high rate of failure for someone who's supposed to have devoted his life to improving that skill and that's what that someone did, spending so much resource on his skill that rolling a 1 is still going to pass the DC.

Even for difficult, complicated tasks, 5% failure rate is unacceptably high. I'm sure you'd agree that piloting and landing a commercial jet is a difficult task, but we don't have 5% of planes crashing everyday.



But those cases are usually so uncommon that it's less than 5%. The d20 simply isn't granular enough to cover those rare cases of failure.

So, what's your point? Please stop with the examples that don't go with what we are talking about. My PC doesn't fly a commercial jet everyday nor does it use all the skills in a given 24 hour period. Sure I may use some skills in one session but days or even weeks can pass during one session. 5% isn't much when something is done not as much during a long period of time. If I use my climb once a week in game then 5% isn't that much. Now if I used my climb check every hour then yes 5% is a lot. Since the d20 is used instead of a d100 then we use what we have. It's not going to simulate reality to the "T".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Then it's not surprising you advocate the removal of Take 10, because it invalidates your house rule. It would've been useful for you to mention that in your OP.

Doesn't matter if we used the auto fail rule or not, I believe take 10 and take 20 should be removed.

 

[Agamon]

Doesn't matter if we used the auto fail rule or not, I believe take 10 and take 20 should be removed.

Well, it looks like something like it is in the core right now, and while you have a right to your opinion of course, it looks like a minority, so that likely won't change.

Perhaps a more robust skills module will allow for more die rolling for those that like that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, it looks like something like it is in the core right now, and while you have a right to your opinion of course, it looks like a minority, so that likely won't change.

Perhaps a more robust skills module will allow for more die rolling for those that like that.

You have some stats somewhere that put me in the minority?

 

[Agamon]

You have some stats somewhere that put me in the minority?

Don't need stats when I said "looks like", as in the responses of this thread.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think you are all arguing over semantics

If "taking 20" is going to make most people succeed at the skill check (and who takes 20 expecting to fail) then it amounts to the exact same thing as the DM simply not asking for a roll and judging that the character can do the task at hand without bothering to calculate the DC hit by "taking 20".

DMs who are willing to do this don't bother with the take 20 rule.

Some go as far as the same thing with taking 10.

Taking 10 is NOT in the 5e rules as core, but something similar is. It's more like a "passive skill" than taking 10, though the results are basically the same. If your stat beats the DC by itself, then the DM doesn't need to make you roll. Presumably the DM CAN make you roll, but the game advises that to speed it up, you shouldn't bother.

 

[kitsune9]

I don't necessarily know all the skill check modifiers that my players have for their characters so if they say, "I take 10" and it beats the DC, that's fine with me. I could auto success skill checks in which I think that if they took their time to do, then it would be fine too.

Taking 10 saves me the trouble of having to figure out if I should auto success a check or know if their character should be able to automatically do it themselves based on their skill checks.

 

[dkyle]

There's a significant difference between the new edition's "autosuccess" rule, and Take 10.

Under Take 10, you get to assume an average result. In 5E, it sounds like you have to assume the worst result. Even if you removed Take 10 and Take 20 from 3.5, 5E-style autosuccess was implicit. If your skill was equal than or greater to the DC (technically DC+1), then you literally could not fail, and it was silly to roll, since skills don't auto-fail on 1s.

The difficulty with Take 10 is adjudicating when it's OK to accept average results, and when to force a roll that could be worse than average. In 5E, the autosuccess isn't even needed as a rule. It's a natural consequence of a system where ability + d20 has to exceed a DC, assuming no auto-fails on 1, as in previous editions.

I'm concerned that 5E autosuccess is poised to become the replacement for Take 10, and Passive Perception. Both are, I think, good ideas. But they only work because they assume average results. For the kinds of routine checks expected to be made many, many times, they work. But if you are assuming the worst possible result every time, then players are going to want to roll constantly, unless their skill is truly enough. It works OK for breaking doors, but what about spotting traps and secret doors? Are we going to have to start rolling perceptions at each door again, since the "passive" result is terrible? Or is it back to: "roll for spot traps" *low roll* "OK, so you open the door?"